Libido and libation

There's an explosive, detailed allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html

1. To judge by the story, I find the allegation realistic and credible. But credible isn't the same thing as convincing. 

2. For the most part, her account lacks any independent corroborative. Thus far, no one else at the party confirms her story. That doesn't mean her story is false. If it happened, both Kavanaugh and witness Mark Judge have every incentive to lie. And if it happened, they were the only direct witnesses. Mind you, if she was distraught, other partiers might notice her condition as she left. 

This is a problem with failing to report a crime when it happens. The witness pool dries up. Memories fade. 

3. The closest thing to corroboration is the polygraph. I think it's significant that she passed the polygraph. Indeed, I think it's significant that she agreed to take it in the first place. If she fabricated the story whole cloth, would she even dare to take a polygraph?

4. That said, a polygraph is not infallible, and to my knowledge, it only shows that the subject is convinced of what they say. Some people who claim to be victims of ritual Satanic abuse might pass a polygraph. Some "alien abductees" might pass a polygraph. On the vicissitudes of the polygraph:

http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx

5. If true, it's odd that she's uncertain what year it happened. Given such an unforgettable incident, how could she be unsure about the year? 

Likewise, she's given conflicting accounts of her age at the time of the alleged assault. Was she 15 or in her "late teens"? How could she not remember her age?

The fact that she says she doesn't remember the year or the place could be a calculating way to render her allegation unfalsifiable. 

6. Although I find her allegation plausible, there's another plausible scenario. Both she and Kavanaugh were inebriated. 

She denies that she was drunk, but I treat her denials the same way I treat the denials of Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. If guilty, they have reason to hide their guilt. They have reason to protect their reputation. But that cuts both ways. For by the same token, if she was inebriated to some degree, she has reason to deny it, since admitting that both were intoxicated dramatically changes the social dynamics. 

Why do teenagers go to drinking parties if not to drink and hookup? By design, it's a sexually charged setting.

7. If they were both intoxicated to some degree, then she could be completely sincere in her recollections, yet intoxication might impair her perceptions at the time, what signals she was sending, as well as her memories of the event. (By "perception" I don't mean sensory perception but interpretation.)

When teenagers and college students attend drinking parties, there's a presumption that the partiers are under the influence and sex is on their minds. It pretty much removes the conditions necessary to establish nonconsent. 

8. Rape charges are often hard to verify if there are no witnesses. In addition, rape depends on nonconsent. And that makes attempted rape even harder to verify. Throw in a drinking party with barelyclad teenagers, and what's the presumption? What's the expectation? 

9. In addition, the timing is politically calculated to derail his confirmation. She's a registered Democrat. 

Now, that's still consistent with the truth of the allegation. But it's equally consistent with expedient defamation. That's a problem with last-minute accusations, which weren't reported at the time the alleged incident occurred. 

10. There's also the issue of double standards. Suppose, at a drinking party, a teenage girl shoved a boy onto a bed and began to tear his clothes off. Technically that's sexual assault, but if girl does it to a boy, does anyone honestly think that's sexual assault–or do we instinctively understand that what may be a traumatic experience for a female isn't a traumatic experience for a male? Men are wired differently. 

Or suppose you had a gay drinking party in which one young sodomite forced himself on another young sodomite. Is that attempted rape? Of did he leave himself open to that, given the setting? Swim with sharks...

Our society needs to get honest about standards. Either have a consistent unisex standard or a consistent complementation standard. If secular progressives are serious about how men and women are physically and psychologically interchangeable, then what is attempted rape when a male takes the initiative is attempted rape when a female takes the initiative.

If, on the other hand, we admit that normal men and women are physically and psychologically different, then that justifies a double standard in some situations (where sexual differences come to the fore), but that needs to be consistently applied. That means excluding women from certain occupations to which they are physically and/or psychologically unsuited.

What we have right now is a double standard when it benefits women. Where men are presumptively guilty. That's a miscarriage of justice.